Search This Blog

J.F.C.M has got jurisdiction to release the vehicle/property seized in EXCISE OFFENCES =The petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865. He approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam, for interim custody of the vehicle by moving an application vide Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. His application came to be dismissed on 11.02.2013 for want of jurisdiction. The issue involved in this Criminal Revision Case is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Smt. Karri Venkamma v. State of A.P.[1], Dharavath Sreenu v. State of A.P.[2] and A.Tata Rao v. State of A.P[3]. This Court, in the above-referred cases held that the criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody.

Criminal Revision Case No.426 of 2013

Date:15th March, 2013

The State of A.P., through SHO, Chintakani Police Station, Khammam District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

…Respondent

***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.426 of 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case has been taken out under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Itham Yesu seeking release of motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 BP 0865, for interim custody, which has been seized on 28.01.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthakani Police Station, Khammam District, in Crime No.14 of 2013.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865. He approached the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam, for interim custody of the vehicle by moving an application vide Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2013 under Section 457 Cr.P.C. His application came to be dismissed on 11.02.2013 for want of jurisdiction. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4. The issue involved in this Criminal Revision Case is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Smt. Karri Venkamma v. State of A.P.[1], Dharavath Sreenu v. State of A.P.[2] and A.Tata Rao v. State of A.P[3]. This Court, in the above-referred cases held that the criminal court has jurisdiction under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, to pass orders for release of vehicles for interim custody.

5. Indisputably, the petitioner is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865. If the vehicle is kept in the custody of the police, there is every likelihood of its being exposed to natural decay.

6. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed with a direction to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam, to release the motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BP 0865, to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to the following conditions:-

1)The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise Cases), Khammam.

2)The petitioner shall not alter the features of the vehicle.

3)The petitioner shall not transfer the vehicle or create encumbrances over it.

4)The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and when required either by the trial Court or by the authority under the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …